THE ROOT OF THE PROBLEM

US President Barack Obama has nominated Robert Francis Cekuta to the office of US ambassador to Azerbaijan. A man with rich diplomatic experience, Cekuta was formerly deputy assistant to the US Secretary of State for energy and also held diplomatic posts in Tokyo and Berlin where he dealt with economic issues. We talked to Adil Bagirov, Doctor of Political Sciences and co-founder and member of the board of directors of the US Azeris Network and the Karabakh Foundation (USA), about Cekuta's appointment and the prospects for Azerbaijani-American relations.

- How would you describe President Obama's choice of Cekuta as US ambassador to Azerbaijan?

- As ambassador, Cekuta will most likely continue to be a technocrat, as he has been throughout his career in the diplomatic service, putting emphasis on economic, and particularly energy relations between the US and Azerbaijan. Although the two other principles - security and democracy, which make up the trident of US' priorities in relations with the countries of the former USSR - will still apply, the more pragmatic principle of energy cooperation will be placed to the forefront in relations for the next three years.

- Clearly, in the case of Cekuta's nomination, we are not likely to see the difficulties there were after M. Bryza was appointed to this post. Or is it still possible that the endorsement of the new ambassador's nomination by the Senate will lead to the same fuss and bother we had in the case with Bryza?

- There is always that chance but I don't think the administration will show the same tolerance it did last time of the intrigues of the Armenian lobby. Not to mention that such procrastination, like all the intrigues of the Armenian lobby in the USA, will hit the United States and its national interests more than Azerbaijan or Turkey.

- Some people are describing the current stage of Azerbaijani-American relations as arguably one of the most difficult, caused by the statements by the incumbent ambassador R. Morningstar. How serious are these differences, do you think?

- Even as a consequence of this rhetoric relations have indeed been more tense than in previous years, and this process began before ambassador Morningstar arrived in Azerbaijan. I would say the first major friction in relations between the governments of Azerbaijan and the USA began in 2003, i.e. 11 years ago, and that was linked with the position of the then ambassador R. Harnish. Then, in November 2010, there was the WikiLeaks scandal, where there was a lot of straight talking. It wasn't until 2012 that Morningstar was appointed ambassador.

Incidentally, Morningstar did more than any other American official when he was special advisor to the president and the secretary of state in helping the countries of the former USSR in 1997-98 on the question of blocking and reducing the direct aid to the Armenian junta on the occupied Azerbaijani territories in the Karabakh region, which members of the Armenian caucus in the US Congress tried to get from the US budget. Those who remember probably know how the Armenian lobby began to put pressure on Morningstar because of this.

All differences between the two countries can be ironed out and relations improved. There are no deep problems as such.  This year control over the US Senate is likely to switch to the Republican Party, which means that the head of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Menendez, an ardent pro-Armenian lobbyist, will lose his high post. In two years' time there will be a new administration in the White House which, depending on who wins, will assess Azerbaijan's role and place in the region. Unfortunately, the Obama administration has not had and, basically, still has no strategy for the South Caucasus and Central Asia and the Caspian region in general. Here lies the root of the problem - when there is no strategy, no tactic, not even the most irreproachable, will help.

- Can one assume that the dramatic events in Ukraine will attract more attention from America's policy makers to Azerbaijan's territorial problem and step up the US' role in a Karabakh settlement?

- The ice has been broken, as they say, and one has detected in the US an arousal, an activation and closer attention to the whole region of the former USSR, and the South Caucasus in particular. There have been more articles in the press, more measures taken, and for the first time in many years the American co-chair of the Minsk Group [of the OSCE] convened a conference and set out the US' official position on the occupation of Azerbaijan's Karabakh region (which caused a storm of indignation in Armenian political circles and its lobby in the US). Moreover, for the first time, the American co-chairman began holding detailed meetings with the Azerbaijani community and the diaspora in the USA, and our organization - The US Azeris Network - was the instigator of this process. Two in-depth meetings have already been held in Washington and a third is being prepared in another state where there is a large population of Azeris.

- At a recent session of the heads of Azerbaijani embassies and diplomatic missions abroad, the head of state set the task of intensifying work in the struggle against the Armenian lobby. At the same time, it became known that when it comes to countering this the Armenian diaspora in Europe intends to take some kind of counter-measures. How would you assess the work of our biggest diaspora organization in Europe - the Congress of European Azerbaijanis (CEA) - in this regard?

- First of all, this is a very important, necessary and useful practice - to bring together all Azerbaijan's ambassadors at least once a year, and not just in Baku. Second, in recent years the Congress of European Azerbaijanis has done an immense amount of work. I have learned this not just from the press, but also from the annual personal interaction which there is between Azerbaijani diasporas and organizations from all over the world, including the CEA, at events organized by the State Committee on Affairs with the Diaspora.

At the same time, I would like to point out once again that it would be wrong to expect any strategic turnaround, at least in the mid-term perspective, from the activities of the Azerbaijani diaspora, embassies and even lobbies in the countries of western Europe and on the American continent where there is much anti-Azerbaijani, anti-Turkish and pro-Armenian feeling.